Quotulatiousness

November 8, 2019

Not all Fascists Are Nazis – Civil War in Austria | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1934 Part 2 of 4

Filed under: Europe, History, Italy — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 06:00

TimeGhost History
Published 7 Nov 2019

Austria is very divided in the 1930s. Austrian Nationalism opposes the idea of a Greater German Reich, which triggers the emergence of Austrofascism. They find themselves in a violet struggle against Nazis, Communists, Democrats and Socialists.

Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TimeGhostHistory

Hosted by: Indy Neidell
Written by: Spartacus Olsson, Joram Appel and Francis van Berkel
Directed by: Spartacus Olsson and Astrid Deinhard
Executive Producers: Bodo Rittenauer, Astrid Deinhard, Indy Neidell, Spartacus Olsson
Creative Producer: Joram Appel
Post-Production Director: Wieke Kapteijns
Research by: Naman Habtom, Joram Appel and Francis van Berkel
Edited by: Daniel Weiss
Sound design: Marek Kaminski

Colorized pictures:
– Daniel Weiss,
– Julius Jääskeläinen (https://www.facebook.com/JJcolorization/),
– Dememorabilia (https://instagram.com/dememorabilia)

Sources:
– Image sources: Bundesarchiv, Bundesarchiv, Bild_183-R36187/102-10358/102-00842A/102-00836/102-00840/102-00839/102-09844. Fortepan_28800(FOTOFORTEPAN MZSLOfner Károly)
– Icons from the Noun Project: School by David, college by anbileru adaleru, Law by Delwar Hossain, Parliament by Gerald Wildmoser, Diploma by Alena, guns by Cards Against Humanity, poll by Bastien Ho,

A TimeGhost chronological documentary produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH.

From the comments:

TimeGhost History
2 days ago (edited)
A lot comes together in this episode. Austria in 1934 is where a lot of political movements, ideologies and methods we saw throughout the ’20s and ’30s in previous episodes go head to head. We explain how Austro-Fascism differs from fascism and how Nazism and Austrofascism engage in a violent clash.

So, this episode covers Communism, Fascism, Austrofascism and Nazism in the context of Austria in 1934. I can predict some of the comments that will appear under this video, so allow me to explain how we interpret and explain the key differences between some of these. In academia, we use a right-left axis to place political movements on based on their ideology, NOT just because of their methods or form of state. Our definition is not politically motivated or does not relate to current day politics. We only apply this definition to the specific historical context of the interwar era and World War Two. In short: totalitarian or authoritarian governments are not all the same. Fascism and Nazism are generally placed on the right because they were driven by state or race superiority, Communism and Socialism are placed on the left as they were driven by class-differences and (theoretical) equality.

Granted, there is a rich scholarly debate surrounding the function and interpretation of the left-right axis. Anyone who is interested to read more about that can read ‘Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies: An Introduction (2017) 15-17.’ However, there are limits to what is accepted as an academic argument and what is plain propaganda. Socialism and Nazism are not the same by any respectable definition. Communism and Nazism both embracing totalitarian regimes does not make them the same. We love to engage in debates about this, and we will do so with anyone who presents a real argument with real examples and sources. We will not engage with trolls who are politicising this historical debate with a modern-day agenda.

Cheers,
Joram

Brendan O’Neill on the “Battle of Canning Town”

Filed under: Britain, Environment, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

This piece is derived from a speech he gave on November 3rd at the Battle of Ideas festival in London:

One of my favourite political events this year was the Battle of Canning Town. This was the moment when Extinction Rebellion decided to send its painfully middle-class agitators to a working-class part of East London early in the morning to lecture and inconvenience people who just wanted to get to work. What could go wrong?

Quite a lot, it turned out. There were many wonderful moments. The two posh greens who climbed on top of a Tube train at Canning Town were mocked and eventually dragged down. A commuter can be heard branding one of the protesters a “ponytail weirdo”. Elsewhere on the Tube system that day, commuters pointed out that the London Underground is run on electricity and is therefore pretty eco-friendly. “Are you that fucking stupid?”, one asked a smug-looking couple of XR agitators. “No wonder you can’t get jobs …”

But the best moment came during the Battle of Canning Town, during that clash between working people and eco-elitists, when one of the commuters shouted at the protesters: “The world is not coming to an end!” I thought that was brilliant. This woman was just trying to get to her job and yet she found herself having to act as the voice of reason against the new hysteria. And she rose to the occasion wonderfully. She said what many of us know to be true: humankind does not face extinction.

The reason I admire the Battle of Canning Town is that it represented a potential turning point in modern green politics. It was really the first time in a long time that eco-hysteria was subjected to public judgement, to democratic rebuke, to the rational scepticism of the people. For far too long green ideology has been insulated from public challenge and public debate and this has allowed it to become increasingly eccentric and even unhinged. The Battle of Canning Town represented a reasoned, bottom-up pushback against the protected hysteria of modern environmentalism.

This is the thing I find most fascinating about Extinction Rebellion: its very name is a lie. Those two words themselves are untrue. Humankind does not face extinction, and all reasonable people know this. We know that there is nothing in the IPCC reports – which themselves are often over-the-top – to justify XR’s harebrained claims that we have 12 years to save the planet, and if we fail billions of people will die. They’ve just made this up.

As for the second word – “rebellion” – this is a lie, too. Extinction Rebellion is not a rebellion. Rather, its ideology and misanthropy are entirely in keeping with the outlook of mainstream politics and popular culture. From the educational sphere to Hollywood’s output, from the political elite to the worlds of advertising and publishing, the ahistorical, anti-human idea that mankind is destroying the planet and will be punished by Weather of Mass Destruction for having done so is entirely accepted, and increasingly unquestionable, in fact.

Cooey: The Unassuming Canadian Workhorse

Filed under: Cancon, History, Weapons — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

Forgotten Weapons
Published 6 Nov 2019

http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons

Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…

Cooey is a brand name that will be immediately recognized by Canadians, but pretty much unknown everywhere else. Founded in 1903 by Herbert Cooey, the company would produce a series of simple and practical firearms that became hugely popular and common in Canada. The basic models were the single-shot .22 Model 39, the bolt action magazine-fed .22 Model 60, and the break action single-shot Model 84 shotgun (and the Model 64 semiautomatic .22, made after the company was sold out of the Cooey family). These are not particularly exciting firearms, but they are ubiquitous across Canada, having served Canadian families reliably for a
century now.

Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle #36270
Tucson, AZ 85704

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Feds to tackle Quebec’s ongoing repression against minorities

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Liberty, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Chris Selley on the situation in Quebec, where first-class citizenship is only available to those who speak French and don’t expect their religious beliefs to be respected:

One of the fascinating things about Quebec politics is that it’s often impossible to predict which absurdities will become controversial and which will be accepted as reasonable. The province’s linguistic and more recently cultural debates operate in an atmosphere so divorced from normal reality that it’s impossible to know how any new idea or event might react to its unique and volatile mixture of gases.

The classic example is Pastagate: An inspector from the Office québécois de la langue française found an Italian restaurant’s menu was riddled with Italian — calamari, antipasti — and issued the appropriate cease-and-desist notice. At no point did anyone suggest he had misinterpreted the law. Despite universal scorn and worldwide mockery, at no point did anyone successfully explain why this inspector’s actions were obviously ultra vires, while the OQLF’s other insane diktats — say, forcing a bilingual community newspaper to segregate English-language and French-language content such that English-only advertising will never appear on the same page as a French-language article — were reasonable.

As a result, Quebec politics is like a festival of trial balloons. Most recently we saw languages minister Simon Jolin-Barrette float the idea of banning merchants from greeting customers with “bonjour-hi” — a Downtown Montreal-ism that turns language hawks crimson with rage — only to have Premier François Legault shoot it down a couple of days later amidst widespread ridicule.

By contrast, we’re supposed to think it’s totally reasonable that the National Assembly voted merely to request that merchants use state-sanctioned greetings. Unanimously. Twice.

Ban religious symbols for all civil servants, or only those “in a position of authority”? Which civil servants are “in a position of authority”? Should currently employed civil servants affected by Bill 21 be grandfathered in or not? You can poll all you like, but until any given idea goes through Quebec’s intense media ringer, no one knows how it’ll shake out. With fundamental rights at stake, the majoritarian randomness of it all is truly alarming.

Shakespeare Summarized: Macbeth

Filed under: Britain, Humour, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Overly Sarcastic Productions
Published 12 April 2014

Here it is! The Scottish Play. The bloodiest of the bloody. An epic tale of magic, madness and stabbing. It’s so gory, even Tarantino thinks it’s over the top.

Making it funny was pretty tough. 😀

QotD: Exports are costs; imports are benefits

Filed under: Economics, Quotations — Tags: — Nicholas @ 01:00

You write that “exports are at least as much a benefit to us as our imports are.”

With respect, you’re mistaken. To see why, look at the matter at the level of your household. What you export from your household is your labor; what you import are the goods and services that you purchase with your income. Suppose that you were given the option of continuing to do one or the other of these activities but not both. That is suppose that you could either (a) continue to export (that is, continue to work) but no longer import (that is, no longer bring into your household any goods and services) or (b) continue to import into your household goods and services for your consumption but no longer work. Which option – (a) or (b) – would you choose?

You would clearly choose option (b).* The reason is that you supply the fruits of your labor to others in order to increase your ability to consume. What you export from your household is a cost that you willingly incur in order to be able to import into your household the goods and services that you and your family consume. What is true at the level of the household is here true at the level of the national economy: the goods and services that Americans export to foreigners are the costs that we willingly incur in order to be able to import into our country the goods and services that we receive from foreigners in exchange. Exports are the means; imports are the end.

* If I’m mistaken and you’d choose option (a), please call me as I have several household repairs to be done and I’d be delighted to have you do the repairs for me for free.

Don Boudreaux, “Exports are Costs; Imports are Benefits”, Café Hayek, 2017-10-17.

Powered by WordPress